Share this Story

Redskins Name-Change Debate Is About ‘White Fear,’ Says Professor

ICTMN Staff

10/3/13

Virginia Tech English Professor Steven Salaita wrote a controversial article for Salon.com insisting that the Redskins name-change debate is more about white fear than anything else.

“The Redskins mascot is a powerful symbol and progenitor of majoritarian angst in today’s United States,” said Salaita, who writes about indigenous people and recently authored a book about Arab Americans in the time of Obama. He said that the “historical Indian” was dispossessed and has been “retrofitted to Hollywood specifications” so that he is received as a passive emblem of American identity.

“Humane assimilationists of the past set out to save the man but kill the Indian. These days the goal is to save the fake Indian, so we don’t kill the white man,” Salaita wrote.

The article explores the historical reference to the name Redskin, and Salaita explains that there is some confusion with its origin, which is why some call it offensive and others do not.

Anti-mascot activists claim that the origin of the name lies in the practice of scalping, in which American soldiers were paid for each scalp or redskin they could produce as proof of a dead Indian.

Salaita references Ives Goddard, a curator and senior linguist in the department of anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution, who said that there is evidence that the name was not originally meant to be offensive. Instead, Goodard said that redskin was first used by Native Americans in the 18th century to distinguish themselves from the white Europeans encroaching on their lands and culture.

But Goodard and Salaita both conclude that no matter where the name comes from it has been used as an insult.

In the article, “There’s Nothing Scarier Than a Nervous White Man: The ‘Redskins’ Debate Is Really About White Privilege,” Salaita argues that getting rid of the mascot won’t do enough to address the real problem with the offensive name.

“Banning Indian mascots doesn’t adequately address the underlying logic that gives rise to the mascots in the first place,” Salaita wrote.

Salaita said that the real problem is a lack of discussion about the decolonization of Native Americans. And said that it was “doubly unfortunate” that debates about mascot offensiveness were not delinked from the real racialized conversations Americans should be having.

“If we are fully to make sense of the Redskins controversy, then, we need to remove the conversation from conventional sites of multicultural politics and situate it in analysis of colonialism and its enduring legacies.”

Salaita’s point was that Americans must listen to Natives instead of telling them what to accept as controversial and offensive. Ironically, it was something similar to what Roger Goodell told a Baltimore radio station that we should ‘listen’ to those hurt by the offensive redskins name. Salaita, whose article racked up more than 100 comments, also concluded that tribes interpret a ban on mascots as ‘pretext for ignoring Indian voices’.

“The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, for instance, responded to a ban on Indian mascots in Oregon by reaffirming their struggle against ‘the real issues of racism,’” he wrote. The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde responded to that same ban, ‘The Tribe is very disappointed that they’ve trampled our sovereignty and have ignored something that our tribes in Oregon have been calling for for years, which is curriculum that accurately describes Oregon’s Native history.”

The Siletz Indians and the Grand Ronde, according to Salaita, expressed the support of various Indian mascots, but rationalized that the issues tribes are fighting for involve correction of past injustices.

Nevertheless, Salatia goes on to say that the mascots, to some tribes, connect them to that history of injustice and that the use of brand images won’t help progressively heal old or correct new wounds. “The Oneida of New York has proclaimed, ‘The word ‘redskins’ is deeply hurtful to Native Americans. It is what our people were called as our lands were taken. It is the insult Native American parents heard as their children were taken’.”

It is at this point Salatia reveals the answer to the question he asks in the title of his piece. Why is this debate really about white privilege?

He said that Indian mascots are “products of an American will to name what has been conquered and to maintain power through a refusal to reconsider traditions of naming.” The Salon writer says that “replacing Indian mascots such as the redskin with more benign characters represents a threat much greater than a change of name or color. It indicates a shift of consciousness from one of colonial privilege to the imminence of tribal autonomy.”

Salatia does not come out and say that the Redskins should change its name, but he insinuates that they should. Unlike other teams that teeter on having offensive names: Vikings, Dallas cowboys, Fighting Irish, and Celtics. He clears up any misunderstanding saying that the redskin is different from other controversial mascots because it is recognized as an epithet in addition to a caricature.

“No matter who says what about Indian mascots, one need only observe their popularity and endurance to realize that they occupy a special position in the American imagination,” Salatia wrote. “Regrettably, it is a colonial imagination, emerging only in relation to the Indians it has invented and must control in order to survive.”

You need to be logged in in order to post commentsPlease use the log in option at the bottom of this page

Comment *

POST A COMMENT

Comments

As a white male who was born and raised in Richmond Virginia I find this artical extremely racist. Furthermore I am sure glad I never attended Virginia Tech. Whatever your nationality black, white, Hispanic, or inidian who cares? In terms of relating identities through mascots, sure it happens. Just like Americans align themselves behind the flag and patriotism during times of war. I guess we should change our country's flag symbol as well, because this land was originally the native Americans land first. It's not like native Americans, blacks, and Hispanics have a large advantage over whites or anything already. Considering that most universities accept these students simply because they are minorities. Regardless of test scores so they can profess diversity. Sad fact is the evil white males and females are no longer the elite people everyone thinks we are. My family has worked hard and lost everything due to taxes, and the fact that laws are setup around race. This isn't the fact for just my family but white families across the United States. The NFL now calls football... Football Americanio because of Hispanic influences. Honestly I thought this was America and that we all shared traditions together. And yes we do make tradition together and set these standards for others to follow. Sadly together, go figure, whites, blacks and Hispanics make up a lot larger portion of norms in this country compared to the natives. So get over it this is tradition this is America this is the norm. Also I will be forwarding this artical to the dean of business administration at Virginia tech university. I am sorry to say that racist liberal articles such as these are poisoning young minds everywhere. I guess next we need to change the Miami dolphins name because it offendends Japanese Americans, because we stereotype them as whalers who kill dolphins/whales. It is people like the individual who wrote this artical that racism and stereotypes still exist. Sadly I know lots of black Americans who are democrats that feel this way, but are afraid to talk openly due to fear of backlash from the Democratic Party. PS: I have seen that Obama supports a name change, but then again Obama is not the spokes person for black Americans either. Grow up and do more constructive things with your time professor. Again I have another email to write later.

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
red·skin /ˈrɛdˌskɪn/ noun
plural red·skins
[count] informal + offensive : native american ◊The word redskin is very offensive and should be avoided.
----
Dictionary.com
red·skin
/ˈrɛdˌskɪn/ Show Spelled [red-skin] Show IPA
noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive.
a North American Indian.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Origin:
1690–1700, Americanism; red1 + skin
Redskin (slang)
"Redskin" is a racial descriptor for Native Americans, the origins of which are disputed. Although by some accounts not originally having negative intent,[1] the term is now defined by dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] "taboo" [6] and is avoided in public usage with the exception of its continued use as a name for sports teams.
The term derives from the use of "red" as a color metaphor for race following European colonization of the Western Hemisphere, although initial explorers and later Anglo-Americans termed Native Americans light-skinned, brown, tawny, or russet. According to historian Alden T. Vaughan, "Not until the middle of the eighteenth century did most Anglo-Americans view Indians as significantly different in color from themselves, and not until the nineteenth century did red become the universally accepted color label for American Indians."[7] Slang identifiers for ethnic groups based upon physical characteristics, including skin color, are almost universally slurs, or derogatory, emphasizing the difference between the speaker and the target.[8]